Cardiorrespiratory response comparison between resisted and endurance HIIT protocols

dc.contributor.authorFernández Elías, Valentín Emilio
dc.contributor.authorIturriaga Ramírez, Tamara
dc.contributor.authorSánchez Lorente, Isabel María
dc.contributor.authorAyuso Chico, María
dc.contributor.authorJiménez, Alfonso
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-06T17:03:08Z
dc.date.available2020-11-06T17:03:08Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION: High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) has been proposed as an effective training method to improve cardiorespiratory fitness in general population. However, HIIT training can be performed under different protocols that could involve different cardiovascular adaptations. Resisted (RHIIT) and endurance (EHIIT) are the most common protocols presented in sports centers, being interval strength training for RHIIT or indoor cycling for EHIIT the most representatives and populars. We compared the two different protocols in order to analyze which exercise elicit a greater cardiorespiratory fitness response. METHODS: 35 subjects, age 34.11±3.87 yo, weight 73.19±12.52 kg and height 165.72±24.28 cm, were divided into 2 groups, EHHIT (N=15) and RHIIT (N=20). All subjects performed a session of each of these group exercise modes, measuring the following: lactate level (Lac) before and after session, Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) with Borg scale (10 point) at the end, and heart rate (HR) during the session. Sessions were divided into zones of HR intensity (1] <70; 2] 70-80; 3] 80-90; 4] >90 %HRmax). The EHIIT mode consisted of 10 minutes of warm-up (85-95RPM) and cool down, main part of 25 minutes (65-100RPM). RHHIT included 10 minutes of warm-up (treadmill) and cool down, main part: metabolic training (6 burpees), weightlifting (3 PushPress), and gymnastic exercises (9 hanging knee raise). RESULTS: The T test showed HRmean was higher in EHIIT compared to RHIIT (148.80±16.23 vs 134.90±19.150ppm respectively, p=0.027). Percentage of exercise time was lower in zone 1 and higher in zone 3 during EHIIT (15.50±22.10%) compared to RHIIT (15.50±22.10% vs 30.24±17.92%, p=0.037 and 32.19±20.17% vs. 19.57±11.54%, p=0.025 respectively). There were no significant differences in HRmax, Kcal, Lac, time in zone 2 and zone 4 between EHIIT and RHIIT. CONCLUSION: Greater HRmean and longer exercise time in higher intensity zones observed during EHIIT indicate that this type of protocols (i.e. indoor cycling) have a greater exercise cardiorespiratory load than RHIIT protocols (i.e. interval strength training). Thus, in order to improve cardirrespiratory fitness, EHIIT exercise are more recommendable.spa
dc.description.filiationUEMspa
dc.description.impactNo data 2019spa
dc.description.sponsorshipConvenio GOfit-UEMspa
dc.identifier.citationFernández Elías, V. E., Iturriaga Ramírez, T., Sánchez-Lorente, I. M., Ayuso, M., & Jiménez, A. (2019). Cardiorrespiratory response comparison between resisted and endurance HIIT protocols. En Book of abstracts of the 24th Annual Congress of European College of sport Science (p. 336). European College of Sport Science.spa
dc.identifier.isbn9783981841428
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11268/9344
dc.language.isoengspa
dc.peerreviewedSispa
dc.publisherEuropean College of Sport Sciencespa
dc.rights.accessRightsrestricted accessspa
dc.subject.uemEjercicio físicospa
dc.subject.uemFisiología humanaspa
dc.subject.uemAparato circulatoriospa
dc.subject.unescoDeportespa
dc.subject.unescoFisiología humanaspa
dc.subject.unescoSistema cardiovascularspa
dc.titleCardiorrespiratory response comparison between resisted and endurance HIIT protocolsspa
dc.typeconference outputspa
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationae46a298-ef05-471c-ae18-cd6592d211b2
relation.isAuthorOfPublication7b6016d6-7d19-4866-af00-937d619936f7
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryae46a298-ef05-471c-ae18-cd6592d211b2

Files